Planck instant and neurobiology. Could mind exist outside time-courses?

  • #1
Although the title mentions biology the answers I need are from physics. If I have understood it correctly Argentinian Electroneurobiology assumes mind to take place at the actions of a force field overlapping the electromagnetic field of the brain. I think. An exposition (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/Effects.pdf p.19-20):
Every mind is found to be primarily an unconnected, and unmergeable, eclosion or “pop-out” of “existential finitude.” Although rare, the word “eclosion” will nevertheless appear often in this article. The phrase “existential finitude” denotes for natural scientists every reality able to sense and move a portion of nature while altering herself by sedimenting those causal involvements away from temporality – this refers to an “instant” and not a time sequence. The designation “away from temporality” thus means “not on a time course but inside the instant,” specifying where such reality occurs and simultaneizes the sedimented sequences (“memories”) of her reactions to her causal interactions. This is why any reality that knows itself ought to possess memory: since nature vacates itself outside actuality and consequently every thing in nature, including each mind, exists only within the physical instant, the preservation of memories is an effect due to absence of time course rather than the presence of brain engrams.

Now I am shaky on the science here, so I am asking for opinions on whether or not these researchers' grasp and application of the physics is solid? I am not asking if the research is orthodox or not (because it surely isn't), only if the proposed mechanisms are plausible in principle? Comments, discussions beyond that are welcome too. I am still trying to make up my mind about this approach. Below I've copied two relevant sections.

From the same paper as above (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/Effects.pdf p. 30-31):

In What Kind of Physical Building Blocks do Minds Find Their Most Immediate Localization?

Like all other force carriers, the mind-exchanges-localizing “particles” are to possess specific speed-determining features. A key one is bulkiness. Without a small inertial mass, each force carrier would be forced to move at exactly light speed, being at all unable to vary its rapidity. Bulkiness limits the force carriers’ speed and makes it different from c. Speed is crucial, as the magnitude taken by the speed of these “particles” expands relativistically (that is, spreads according to relativity physics) the “thickness” of the physical instant – the interval-like span “during” which all causation ought to stay non-transformative – into the time resolution or acuity of the individual gnoseological apprehension whose causal exchanges are localized in such quickly propagating “particles” or action packets. In other words, a minimal extramental interval unit (or “instant”) is, in this way, dilated into a minimal experienced interval unit (or “moment”). This relativistic dilation, technically expressed by the Lorentz-FitzGerald and the Valatin-Bogoljubov transforms, delivers across different motion-frames the features of a unique causal efficiency.

Such a dilation is observed to be ~1041 times, a magnitude specified by the velocity of these particles. (Of course, in case that the modulus of transformational change is taken to be different from that of the Planck instant – e.g. taking as “primitive” the transition time of some modality of interaction, all of which in the currently observable universe take more than ~1019 Planck instants – this specification of absolute speeds for achieving the proper time dilations will proportionally vary: a dilation of about 1020 times would suffice. The scenario, and the physical means at play, are nevertheless to subsist, and so to avoid needless complications this article will provisionally assume the Planck instant as modulus of transformational change.) This speed, slightly less than light’s, is determined by the very small inertial mass or invariant bulkiness of these particles, which makes them slower than light, and the dynamical mass-modulating, coupling effect of the overlapping electromagnetic field, whose potentials are diversely modulated by the physiological state in the diverse brain regions and, correspondingly, modulate the speed of these particles where the observer’s interactions are localized. To be precise, the velocity that creates this dilation corresponds to subtracting from light speed an extremely tiny fraction, only about 1/1082 of light speed; I will use from now on the standard notation, indicating that it subtracts from light speed a 10-82 fraction. This speed may be further changed – by coupling with an even less efficiently-coupled mode of electroneurobiological operation over considerable regions of the brain tissue – into a new velocity that only subtracts a 10-96 fraction from light speed and so turns the observer’s acuity into a time resolution unable to resolve less than dozens of minutes. It is a much coarser time-resolution or time-acuity (sometimes called “time-graining”) than the one with which the formations offered by the brain organ keep track of the transformations of surrounding relevancies to “read” the environment in a biologically useful “tempo.”

By analogy, such a condition resembles playing a musical recording at a speed many thousand times slower than the proper rate – stretching any musicality beyond recognition, forfeiting any ability to resolve (identify) single sounds or recognize the musical performance. However, the observer’s “local” acuity stays unaltered and, whenever such an observer is awakened from any sleep stage (whether dreaming or not), she breaks off some course of mentation which “at the precise time” was entertaining. Between the two subtracted values, proper of deep sleep and wakefulness, a full range of attention-disattention is established, and each degree set in it may affect all or instead some of the brain’s sensable productions.
And from another paper of the same tradition, now attempting to counter some possible objections to the above outlined view (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/localization_of_minds.pdf p. 254):
Objections rise immediately against the verisimilitude of this scenario.

What is the separate force field whose action carriers provide immediate localization to minds’ operative efficiency? Ignoramus. In the discussed perspective one can note that minds do not ride photons nor gluons because these action carriers, being massless, cannot become decelerated or vary from the c speed in the medium. Neither do minds ride W or Z particles because the masses of these bosons are too large to generate by way of dilation the observed relationships. This is so whether one takes as the time-like thickness of nature the Planck instant or – on the other end of a possible range – the characteristic time of some interaction modality. Neutrinos and electrons are precluded, too. They are not action carriers of force fields (they are classified as belonging with matter fields). Furthermore, when taking the Planck instant as the time-like thickness of nature, at the speeds assumed to produce the awake acuity dilation neutrinos attain a dynamical mass of some four tons (1040 eV) each, while electrons become 1041 MeV, or about 1011 kg each. Such masses still increase by a factor of the order of a million at the speeds assumed to produce deep-sleep acuity dilation. These particles remain precluded even when less formidable prospects come into view by taking, as time-like thickness of nature, the characteristic times taken by the transition caused by, or specific delay of, some currently segregated interaction modality (in which case the dilation factors, between about 1020 for awake minds and 1024 in sleep mentation, would require speeds of between c – 10-40c and c – 10-48c). Thus no clue has been identified for matching the properties of any known species of fundamental particles with those required for producing the mentioned effect.

Another objection, redolent of the Bohr electron issue, observes that brain tissues are not accelerators radiating in the gamma spectral band the energy needed to make those particles to revolve so as to usefully remain inside the bio-logical organ while darting at those speeds. Those sharp turns, however, are uncalled for inasmuch as individual particles become suitably substituted. Dragged by the sum of known astronomical motions at almost 400 km per second, the brain organ remains in Fermi scale-contact with a fixed volume or region of its own size, of all physical fields, during ~10-21 second. Into and out of this macroscopic region, but in the microphysical scale, all of the overlapping physical fields bring the particles which set their respective, overlapping potentials. Since the discussed scenario comes from a combination of observational hints, seemingly one could only surmise that this short time in contact with the same place suffices for the unknown force field coupled with the electromagnetic one to engage by coupling into following the local electromagnetic variational trends of potential variation.

A third and more important objection takes for granted that, in order to bring in speed fluctuations, physiology should influence barygenesis – i. e. generate and wipe out inertial mass. It is correct to observe that the action carriers where minds localize their causal exchanges must have a slight invariant mass, namely the one allowing them to move at close to light speeds rather than c. By modulating this speed, the fluctuations of electroneurobiological states are to slow these action carriers down to the speed causing the time dilation proper of awake minds’ attentional focus; in the discussed scenario, when such a physiological action becomes physiologically relaxed or pathologically impaired, relativistic dila-tion increases and minds get disconnected from the surrounding causal courses. However, assuming that the rest mass should vary is unnecessary. Putting aside the exotic supposition that the brain’s electroneurobiological action could add inertial mass to these action carriers so as to vary their invariant mass, leaves one with the possibility of envisaging this effect just as a coupling varying their speed, i.e. some absorption mechanism, redolent of a modulation of hysteresis loses, that reduces the carriers’ dynamical mass by way of specific variational patterns of the superimposed electric field – abstaining for the moment from further theorizing.

Finally, one should observe that space, or dispersivity for forces, is not a cosmological primitive: vast amounts of fresh space are being continuously created with the expansion of the observable universe. What we can localize in space is action, not the action’s determinations, whence “minds’s localization” means that we localize the presence of some of mind’s operations, not that of their de-terminations. Whether mental or not, the latter seem to eschew manifestation in such a derivative occurrence, spatiality.
Thanks for your input :smile:

(Should this be the wrong forum please notify me per PM and I will gladly delete and repost the thread elsewhere)
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
911
1
The mind cannot exist outside time-space. however it can think beyond/outside time-space, while residing in space-time.

Although the title mentions biology the answers I need are from physics. If I have understood it correctly Argentinian Electroneurobiology assumes mind to take place at the actions of a force field overlapping the electromagnetic field of the brain. I think. An exposition (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/Effects.pdf p.19-20):



Now I am shaky on the science here, so I am asking for opinions on whether or not these researchers' grasp and application of the physics is solid? I am not asking if the research is orthodox or not (because it surely isn't), only if the proposed mechanisms are plausible in principle? Comments, discussions beyond that are welcome too. I am still trying to make up my mind about this approach. Below I've copied two relevant sections.

From the same paper as above (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/Effects.pdf p. 30-31):



And from another paper of the same tradition, now attempting to counter some possible objections to the above outlined view (http://electroneubio.secyt.gov.ar/localization_of_minds.pdf p. 254):


Thanks for your input :smile:

(Should this be the wrong forum please notify me per PM and I will gladly delete and repost the thread elsewhere)
 
  • #3
SpectraCat
Science Advisor
1,395
2
Can you please check those quotes against the original source and fix the exponentiation on the numbers? I have the feeling that at least some of those "1040" and "1080" numbers are supposed to be 1040 and 1080. If not, I am very confused. Anyway, can you please fix the typesetting?

I am not all that optimistic that it will make those passages any easier to understand, but at the very least I could check their numerical claims ...
 
  • #4
Can you please check those quotes against the original source and fix the exponentiation on the numbers? I have the feeling that at least some of those "1040" and "1080" numbers are supposed to be 1040 and 1080. If not, I am very confused. Anyway, can you please fix the typesetting?

I am not all that optimistic that it will make those passages any easier to understand, but at the very least I could check their numerical claims ...
Sorry about that, it was quite late when I posted. Should be fixed now. I'm not optimistic either, but I'll stay unbiased for the time being. Should there be something to this tradition (they claim to have been conducting clinical research on this for over a century, unnoticed by the European and American mainstream), it would provide quite revolutionary perspectives. I am no expert on these quantum mind theories, but as a layman I appreciate that some milieus at least attempt to seriously think through the possibilities a micro-physical account could open.
 
  • #5
The mind cannot exist outside time-space. however it can think beyond/outside time-space, while residing in space-time.
Cheers. The claim seems to me that "extra-mentality" (the brain and the whole non-empsyched universe) in their view behaves according to efficient causality, while for example memories are stored somehow "within" the physical instant. They are in this view not "engraved" in some neural storage patterns and cannot succumb to time. The brain is there to enable "re-imagining" of memories, but not to store them. So in a larger picture, mind is from their perspective situated in an "environment" of efficient causality, which breaks down every time it meets a minded creature, which in turn becomes both a sink and innovator of causal chains.

Now forgive my ignorance, but they claim that anything in nature only co-exists in the physical instant, that moment in which no causal transformation yet could have happened. Is this at least hypothetically possible? One of the features of mind does seem to be that it is always experiencing in the now and that "the minds eye" never "ages" - it rather is flicked on and off by different states of consciousness that impinge. Now strangely in the rest of nature (non-mind), at least at classical scales, we seem to observe everything dragged along in causal transformation where only the immediately antecedent situation matters for the transformation. Minds don't seem to get dragged along in the same sense, they retain a certain "now" in which they can act and react. They can activate certain pasts and make them relevant to a present, so their nows are not determined by the full sum of their relevant antecedents.

Couldn't time course very differently for different objects and particles? (not a rhetorical question, my physics is that shaky :smile:)
 
  • #6
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,663
Locked, pending moderation.

Zz.
 

Related Threads on Planck instant and neurobiology. Could mind exist outside time-courses?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
925
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
735
Replies
4
Views
195
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
Top